HOLMES ANNIVERSARY VOLUME 



North Atlantic area hold, we must consider that the population here 

 has been stable for a very long time. In California this must mean 

 that the greater part of the people speaking the different linguistic 

 stocks had a common origin, as in fact some investigators now claim 

 the languages themselves show. 



In a former paper the writer analyzed the distribution of culture 

 areas, showing how they tended to resolve themselves into culture 

 centers around which were intermediate types. It would be interesting 

 to make this experiment for the archeological areas also. The only 

 discussion bearing directly on this point is Kroeber's summary for 

 California, 1 where it appears that the same subdivisions are found 

 in archeological data as in the culture of the historic period. In like 

 manner, Dixon, in reviewing the migrations of the Indians of New 

 England, divides the northern half of Area I into three provinces or 

 centers, as indicated by the distribution of archeological artifacts 

 alone. 2 These localizations are then shown to correspond to differences 

 among the historic tribes both in culture and language. The sugges- 

 tion here is that if we had the data, centers of archeological distribution 

 could be located analogous to the trait centers noted in the historic 

 period. That such centers have not been worked out is due to the 

 complexity of the problem which arises from two conditions. In the 

 first place, there are no convenient tribal units in archeology so that 

 each successive minute geographical area must be checked over, and 

 secondly, there must be some confusion in these units due to chrono- 

 logical differences. We must be prepared, therefore, for far less 

 regularity and consistency than we find in historic culture until by 

 the development of chronological distinctions we are able to separate 

 the diverse elements into their respective strata. 



Since some anthropologists look askance at any serious attempt to 

 define culture areas, we may offer a few points in justification. In 

 the first place these critics go on talking of North Pacific Coast cul- 

 ture, Plains culture, Plateau culture, etc., even when denying the 

 validity of the classification. Some take the extreme view that any 

 kind of a classification not based on chronology is vicious. I think a 

 little reflection will show that these objections arise from inadequate 

 understanding of the principles of classification. In the first place, 

 the culture area map is a classification of the traits found among the 

 living tribes and belongs therefore to one definite chronological period. 

 It represents the cultures practised during the historic period. It is 



'A. L. Kroeber, The Archaeology of California, Putnam Anniversary Volume, 1909. 

 2 R. B. Dixon, The Early Migrations of the Indians of New England and the Maritime Pro- 

 vinces, Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, vol. 24, pt. 1, 1914. 



[486] 



